Let’s fast forward to tonight and indulge this hypothetical for a moment.
After winning the toss, Australia bat first in their final group stage clash of the World Cup. Needing a win over South Africa to finish atop the table, they start strongly as David Warner and captain Aaron Finch put on 150 in the first 25 overs. Both, however, fall in quick succession and the incoming Usman Khawaja and Steve Smith begin a mini repair job.
The pair start somewhat slowly but pick things up gradually, until Australia reaches 2/230 after 43 overs. Khawaja and Smith are still, at this stage, going at less than a run-a-ball, and are yet to clear the men on the rope.
It is at this point that Khawaja’s job as an anchor is arguably done. But he remains in the middle, hitting the odd boundary along with ones and twos. Australia’s time at the crease, however, is whittling away as Glenn Maxwell sits in the rooms, padded up, helmet on, waiting.
They need Maxwell’s power to propel them past 300, so a wicket wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing at this stafe. In fact, it could even be a blessing. But Khawaja remains at the crease.
In that moment, though, Finch could take matters into his own hands. He could enforce a tactical retirement, inserting Maxwell for Khawaja. A substitution, if you will.
Conventional cricketing wisdom suggests this is a no-no. ‘Retired’ batsmen are forced from the field through illness or injury, not choice. Plus, the rare act of pulling a batsman from the field would be embarrassing or even emasculating, to some.
But why? The move is perfectly legal under MCC laws. Players are swapped or substituted for better-equipped teammates in almost all team sports, so why not cricket?
In an age of ‘one percenters’ and marginal gains, the decision to insert your biggest hitter appears straightforward. In fact, a good indicator of its effectiveness would be a quick straw poll of the opposition’s death bowlers: Who would you prefer to bowl to?
None would say Maxwell.
So by extension, leaving Khawaja (who, by the way, is still a helpless pawn in this hypothetical exercise) at the crease is assisting the opposition in their quest to keep the score as low as possible. It is undermining, albeit to a small extent, the batting team’s ability to press for its highest score and further, its chance of winning the match.
Arguments in favour of ‘tactical retirements’ have been made on social media this World Cup but perhaps more prominently by cricket writers and broadcasters in Adam Collins and The Roar’s Geoff Lemon on their Final Word daily podcast.
Notably, the pair raised the topic again after England’s win over India on Sunday where, in the host’s innings, Joe Root was dismissed in the 45th over for a 54-ball 44.
“I think it should become part of the orthodoxy in one day cricket,” Collins said of tactical retirements. “Root actually became an anchor on the side, through no fault of his own. It’s just his point in the game had ceased to be relevant anymore when it’s into the last ten overs and you’d get far more out of a [Jos] Buttler or [Ben] Stokes.”
The move is not without risk, of course. Had England replaced Root with Buttler, the keeper-batsman might have been dismissed first ball and England would have lost two batsmen essentially in one ball. But that misses the point.
The only instance this tactic would be used by the batting side is a) late in the innings, and b) with considerable wickets in hand. That is, when the reward outweighs the risk.
In press conferences we hear, almost ad nauseam, of cricketers ‘playing their role’ and ‘doing whatever they can do for the team’. Tactical retirements would certainly be a test of the rhetoric.
While some, perhaps even most, batsmen would be annoyed, understandably, to be pulled from the middle, the game is not just about them. It’s also about ten teammates, staff, and in the case of the World Cup, millions of fans. Know your role, play your role, or so footy-speak dictates.
Perhaps this goes to the heart of why tactical retirements are yet to even reach public conversation. Cricket is an individualist sport masked as a team sport. It is also a game steeped in (mostly positive, and sometimes humourous) traditions and conventions that appear hard to break from.
But objectively, a move like this is merely a step away from what is ‘normal’ and expected. It doesn’t mean it’s not right.
So why can’t we pull a nudger and nurdler back into the rooms and unleash an explosive hitter? Tactical retirements make tactical sense. It’s also a ploy that has the propensity to further annoy traditionalists. But then again so has many of the game’s advancement.
They’ll get over it.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Immediate reaction is one of horroe. However, so long as they remain "retired - out", then it becoimes another risk/reward decision. Its not something most teams would do lightly, the risk of the big hitter coming in and getting out is very real. All that's happened is the team is in a bit more trouble at the loss of two wickets for no gain. I could onlt see teams doing it very late in the innings, if they have more than one big hitter remaining and the guy out there was barely getting the ball off the square despite trying to hit out. While I don't think I would like to see it done, I don't have anything theoretically against it. Changing the rules so the retired batsman was not out and could return (which is not the point of the article) is another question again. That would be too far, probably even in the anti-cricket that is T20.
bobbo7
Guest
I think this takes care of itself with a hit out and get out scenario. If a team is in a position where they want an aggressor in, they have usually had a pretty good start and wickets in hand. Most top order batsman can find the boundary once set. If you are in a situation where you want quick runs the set batsman tees off - if he gets out the tonker comes in. If he finds the boundary then there is no real problem - it is win/win. I don't really see what the issue is here. One of the beauties of cricket is that players have to fulfill roles they may not excel in - such as bowlers batting. If you could just sub Root back in at number 9 I think you take something away from the game.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Again, totally agree. You pick your XI before the game and "live or die" by the team you chose, knowing before the first ball was bowled, what nuances you may come up against as the game progressed. If we want to go "tactical", then for example in this WC, why not get rid of the First XI concept and just allow batsmen or bowlers to be pulled and played on match day, from the squad of 15? Or introduce a 5-over bowling powerplay where the fielding team has the choice of playing out a bowler for as little as 2 balls or as much as 30 balls in a row, depending on whether they are getting smacked around or are otherwise taking wickets/containing. They're both tactical responses. But do these (or other variants from which you could choose ad nauseam) align with the storied and rich tradition of our centuries-old game (even if the ODI format itself is only 50 years old)? I don't have an issue with David raising the proposition as a talking point; however I do have an issue with both David's concluding statement in his article and his subsequent doubling down in the comments section where he has not just raised the proposition, but has then supported it.
Noah Barling
Roar Pro
If everyone is so fussed, they can just stock the batting line up with Glenn Maxwells who will get out very quickly or they can get someone like Khawaja to get out, everyone bowls yorkers in the last 10, just tell him to miss it, bang bowled send in Maxwell or whomever
Noah Barling
Roar Pro
Test bowlers are allowed 2 overs off the field before they get clocked, so if a bowler is off for 4 overs, they must wait two overs before they can bowl again. So, if they are off for 40 overs, then they are pretty useless as they would have to wait for 38 overs before bowling. Same rules apply to batsmen, as South Africa declared in Adelaide 2016 as David Warner had been of the field a longer time than allowed and hadnt spent enough time on the field to make up for it, as a result Australia sent in Usman Khawaja to open.
Paul
Roar Guru
exactly Jeff. If a fielding captain is wily enough, clever enough or smart enough to keep a bloke IN who's underscoring, surely his team should be rewarded. ODI cricket in it's current form, when played on sporting pitches, does not need to be changed. This idea hopefully stays here and doesn't get more traction. It truly sounds like the sort of thing you & I might come up with over several beers at our favourite local, waiting for the cricket to start!!!
Jeff
Roar Rookie
But David, it’s not improving the game. It’s just changing the game. For what end? There’s 101 things that could probably done to change the game. But why? Other than change for change’s sake.
Dwanye
Roar Rookie
Hi badmanners. That’s my thoughts. Rather then the captain calling a ‘retirement’, I never understood why (maybe they do and I miss it) the captain/coach/management/whoever sitting on the sides have set signals like baseball. ‘Start boundaries/put foot down’, getting out won’t count against you. The part written in the article about ‘embarrassing/emasculating’ is a strong one. I remembering hearing Robo on talkintalkin sport once talking how batsman being so delicate, had to watch what you said to them, had to have their confidence up all the time. Where as a bowler gets smashed, has to get back on there, totally different mindset how the two players actually worked he said.
Simon
Guest
Disappointing that half the comment section didn't read the article. I think at the moment it's seems like a spirit of the game thing. But it will happen at some point, and I don't think the ICC will be favourable when it does
David Schout
Expert
Each to their own, I obviously don't agree. Like I said, it's not often the opportunity would arise, but when it does (as it has twice with Root this WC) then it should happen.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I wanted to blow up when I read this, so left it alone re posting a comment because it would have become a rant. You have calmly articulated the similar thoughts I had. Completely agree.
Paul
Roar Guru
David, the ODI game is already an artificial construct that almost totally favours batsmen, eg they can bat for 50 overs, often on roads, with grounds the size of postage stamps and you want to give them more of an advantage. At this level, guys should know how to bat and if they're not capable of performing a certain batting task - tough bikkies. What happens if the bloke underperforming is the captain? Whos going to make the call to drag him? If a bowler is getting belted to all parts, why can't a skipper stop him after 2 balls and substitute him with a guy who can bowl yorkers? Sounds silly? Well so does tactical substitutions. Tactical retirements make NO sense and thankfully have no part in the game. This thought bubble is simply an excuse to make the bat & ball contest even more biased toward batting. Hopefully it will never see reality.
Tonester
Roar Rookie
I don't think that anyone has suggested that, not least of whom would be the writer of the article.
James
Guest
I dont like the idea of replacing a bowler with a batsman because thats adding another player to a team and that means cricket is no longer 11 players but i do think a fast bowler should be able to have a rest in test cricket and be able to be replaced with a specialist fielder who cant bowl. Bowl for a set number of overs and then be able to go and ice the arm would greatly reduce injuries.
AREH
Roar Guru
Don't mind it. The issue may not exist for Australia nearly as often if they would just be more flexible with their order depending on circumstance
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
In T20 and ODI it may work if it is limited to just the one sub per game. But I think a similar role is already filled by the all-rounder.
David Schout
Expert
Correct, they should. And most of the time they do realise that. But sometimes they just don't go out, and that's when it should be enacted. Haha everyone loves red ink!
badmanners
Roar Rookie
But David shouldn't a "nudger/nurdler" who knows his/her role fully, understand by that time with strike power in the shed it's time to hit out or get out? By that time there's no shame in getting caught on the boundary. I'd reckon every bat knows his/her stats (to two decimal places!) and they do like a not out...